Epicor 9, Microsoft NAV or Syspro?

I am interested in hearing from anyone that currently uses Epicor 9, Microsoft NAV or Syspro. We are a mid-sized international wholesale distribution company and are currently in the process of searching for an ERP system.

These are the answers I would like to have from anyone uses these systems to help make our decision...
Are you happy with it?
What other software did you look at?
What made you choose this software? What did this software have that the others did not?
Is software stable?
Were all your costs fully exposed?
Is there anything you wish you could change or add?
Publsher: how is the support
Do you see this as being a long term solution?

Lindsay, I am quite familiar with all 3 of these systems. Here is some insight:
- all three will have some happy and some sad customers. Epicor is commonly supported direct, and I have heard mixed reviews. NAV and Syspro are supported by VARs so customer satisfaction can be proportional to the quality of the VAR.
- there are hundreds of ERP systems out there so any company that has purchased one of those three systems may have also reviewed any of dozens of others.
- the costs are never fully exposed with any system. In fact you will not know the true system cost until 12 months after you go live.
-What made them choose the specific system should provide some interesting comments. I find that the number one reason companies picked a specific system is because they liked the sales demo.
- All three have been around for years, so they should all be stable. Epicor 9 does not have many customers live (at least not many live that are mid-sized).
- there will always be things your wished you could change. uncovering the truth as best as you are able, before making your decision.
- Again, Epicor support is a mixed bag. NAV and Syspro support will depend on which VAR you are working with
- Any company that purchases an ERP system sees it as a long term solution. It will be interesting to hear a few customers opinions that have had these systems for a few years now.

With Microsoft, you will want to choose a "Gold Partner" because this is a highly sought after recognition partly based on customer satisfaction. Over 65,000 companies use the NAV product worldwide. ITS-Dynamics.com is the partner we have been supported by for some time now.

Navision and Syspro are good tier 3 systems, Epicor is tier 2... meaning, if you are under $20M then you probably will be happiest with a tier 2 system. If you are multi-site, or international, have complex costing/material planning/scheduling needs or are over $50M, you would probably be happier with Epicor or Infor SyteLine.

My company is also going through a similar evaluation process of systems. With Epicore, they seem to have a hard time coming up with references on the current version, as well as providing local sites to visit. The hardware requirements seem to be a lot more intensive than the others on the list, which should be compared for an overall total cost. In addition, many things shown through the demo process which appear to be standard turn out to be line items on the proposal. The implementation is a concern for us and as such not meeting the team that will be involved or better yet those that will be responsible is troubling us. I will check with my project lead and come back with what we learned about the others you've asked about. GT

We are a media and broadcasting company in India and have implemented Navision in 2008 and are very happy with its functionality, ease of use and features. Especially its tight integration with Microsoft word, excel and other products.
We looked at option of SAP, Ramco, Oracle etc however looking at the timeline, TCO, future maintenance cost we found that Navision is easy to maintain and doesn't need specialized person in IT.
Also most of the implementation, support and AMC is routed through partner so you always can negotiate hard and get better price.

One of the reason for going with Navision was its easy customization option, reporting is quick and you can dump the data in xl right from form itself. Also it is the best when it came to localization.

@ Steve CPA - Revenue has little to do with which system one chooses. Function and the specific needs of one's company are vastly more important. NAV has provided us with $100m and $20m references in our vertical and both are extremely satisfied with the product. Most likely similar stories exist for the other products you mention.

Revenue, or SIZE, does matter. Most small companies do not have the IT infrastructure (resources/hardware) to support a vendor's product that caters to larger organizations. Vice versa, most larger organizations have functional needs that surpass the capabilities of smaller systems.

A small company can successfully run one of the larger products, if there are pre-existing resources who are familiar with it's care and feeding. Again, a larger company can run one of the smaller products if they have resources that can customize, or go best-of-breed in areas that are lacking.

Every vendor will have their own sweet spot in size, industry/critical criteria, and geography. Every vendor will have a handful of outliers, too (customers who are above and below the average size company they cater to).

Find as many as you can that are the same size. The probability of successful implementation increases if you are in the vendor's sweetspot and reduces the risk of needing to hire specialized resource or customizing to fill functional gaps.

Interesting responses. Seems like Andy is the only one giving some impartial direction. Would like to know how Lindsay narrowed down to the 3 options that are on the table. With that insight she might get more meaningful information. Why others selected certain solutions may or may not have anything to do with what is important to Lindsay's business. As to pushing one or the other, the fact that you selected something doesn't mean it is the way for another organization to go. And as to having a couple of good Navision references, I can also provide a couple that say Navision almost put them out of business! I think this point illustrates the flaws of using what others have done to guide your selection process.
Bill

I think you will find that Andy will give you an unbised ponit of view most of the time, if you stay around any length of time after your question is answered. This forum is almost as bad as the "Groups" on Plaxico or Linkedin, where you have a few people who need some answers or would like to kick around an idea, but they are crowded out by all the consultants and sale people who are there to get you to buy a product or service.

In our search for an ERP we made a list of features and functionalities that we had to have, a "must have" list if you will. We sent to all prospective vendors and asked if they could meet those needs and to explain how. That helped narrow down which ERP's we even wanted to pursue. From that point, my recommendation would be ask questions, don't assume ANYTHING. Insist that they demo any functionality you have questions about. Document everything, especially during the sales process and demos. This will provide clarity and backup (proof) after the purchase; what you thought you were buying, and what they said they could provide.

Having just been burned by an ERP purchase, I admit I am a little skeptical. Although it won't get our money back, helping others avoid the same mistake will make me feel better.

I think that one other point to consider. Think of each ERP system as a type of prebuilt steel building. Each one has its strengths and design elements. All fundamentally do the job, in today's market there is little functionally to distinguish each product from another. I have sold, implemented or competed with all of these systems and I have my own bias. If I owned a small business I would consider each.

The second part of the equation is the actual implementation. Using my metaphor of the steel building, as important as the design of the building is, the crew who erect it on site has equal weight. A well designed product (software) can fail completely if the team implementing it is a bunch of clowns. A less capable product can work very well if it is implemented properly.

The functional demo is important but equally so is understanding the delivery model and the references in your industry and/or locale are just as critical. If a vendor wants to initially show you software without asking why you are looking to make changes or what are your critical business requirements - walk away. They are selling glitz and not a solution.

The 3 main questions are: How does it work in the context of our corporate goals, direction and customer deliverables? How will it deliver value to the company, our people and customers? How will the vendor help mitigate risk/cost should any discrepancy arises? If they treat you like partners then you have found the right vendor (assuming the functionality/reference test).

Just a quick opinion - I would rank Nav #1, Epicor #2 (I agree with some of the IT and support concerns) and Syspro #3 (it is functionally rich but still has legacy elements to its design).

For the record I sell and support SAP Business One, which I think would be competitive in this situation but that is not germane to this thread.

Sunny, good advice. The problem with the questions list is often that vendors will respond yes no matter what. I don't think it's always to be purposely deceptive but sometimes the people who fill those things out (that was me once upon a time) look at everything from the best possible angle.

What I find the most intriguing part of your post is the "just been burned by an ERP purchase". Those are often the most instructive/educational stories. A company/individual learns some things from a perfect implementation but often learn extremely valuable lessons from one gone wrong. Would you be interested in sharing even the highlights of your experience? Does it involve any of the players in question ?

Sunny, were you "burned" with your most recent ERP purchase? Or was it with a previous system purchase? I am sure the audience would be interested in knowing which systems you have used and the issues you have experienced.

Every once in a while we see a vendor touting the latest and best technology and capabilities.
And some are actually caught into buying it. And yes they got burned. They just don't have enough installed base to check out. Not to mention support issues.
And yes, as Terry analogy is spot on. The "Support Team" experience makes the differences and yes a less capable product can work very well if it is implemented properly.
So you look at the Crew supporting you. You check out the install based, (call n visit) apart from the functionalities that you need.
Just my thoughts.

Terry,
I assume that from several of your posts that you recommend (or sell) SAP
Business One because you no longer have the capability to work with Visual
(the good old Alpine days) since the Infor acquisition. What a shame for
all of us that the best product ever has been so mishandled and
misrepresented since then.

I think once you narrow the process down to 2 solutions, it's worth the investment to pay for a conference room Pilot of both using some of your data and processes. When you can take a product off of the slick demo script and into the real world, is where you'll see if it's just a plywood building at Universal Studios or the real deal.

At 12:48 PM 8/31/2010, Mr_Manufacturing via erp-select wrote:
>I think that one other point to consider. Think of each ERP system
>as a type of prebuilt steel building. Each one has its strengths and
>design elements. All fundamentally do the job, in today's market
>there is little functionally to distinguish each product from another.

To some extent it may well be true of the larger tiered systems
that are generally aimed at very generic, often larger, businesses.
But when you look at all the Tier 3/4 and a lot of the needs of
the mid to smaller size companies, this is just not true at all.
And hasn't been for well over 10 years when the industry specific,
highly specialized ERP products have come along. Today you can
not only find multiple products like "lumber software" or "plastics
manufacture" but you get "saw mills of up to 30,000 cubic feet per day
using board layout optimization and RFID tags" or "injection molding
ERP for automotive dashboards produced only on alternate Wed".
There are so many specific products that have sub-segmented industries
down to the level of sub-segments of sub-segments. And the functionality
differences there are not just real, they're vast in many cases.

Sure, there are some products that were made to the be infrastructure
type. (Nav and B1 for example) And that kind of description is valid
for them. However there are whole other classes of software made
very specific situations and industries. (things like several of
Consona's products or our own) And there are some in between which
is more of the Axapta, QAD or Epicor. One of them is not any better
or worse than another. But they certainly are very, very different.

We (manufacturing and wholesaler) are currently running a free "pilot" of Microsoft Dynamics NAV with our data. To me this proves the consulting firm's confidence in their product. So far, we have had few glitches. No other ERP company was willing to do a pilot like this one.

A Microsoft partner's willingness to install software up-front doesn't indicate confidence in their product. It indicates desperation. Most ERP partners would never do this. Not because they don't have confidence in their product, but because they have so much confidence in it that they don't need to resort to this very expensive sales tactic.

Go to a GM or Chrysler dealer today, and they'll let you drive your choice of new car. Not just for a short test drive...they'll let you take it home for a couple of days because they're desperate. Try that with a Subaru dealer, who has a superior product, and they'll politely tell you that if you don't want to buy the car today, someone else will, and it's the truth.

What made you choose this software? What did this software have that the others did not?
- For each of my clients the answers are different. Several of my clients chose Epicor because: 1) solid feature/function fit out of the box, 2) cost, 3) nice look and feel, 4) product viability. I had a demo with Syspro a couple weeks ago and their salespeople said they win deals based on 1) cost, 2) good feature/functions, 3) VAR relationships. For NAV I keep hearing about its success in niche areas like food and beverage.

Is software stable?
- All apps have a stable platform. While an individual install may not be stable, they have all big enough install bases that the stability issues have been worked out.

Were all your costs fully exposed?
- In several deals I've helped with recently, none of them included every cost that was incurred by the end of the project. At least add 10-20% to their not to exceed costs.

Is there anything you wish you could change or add?
- I had an Epicor client recently tell me they wish they would have locked up their Epicor resources. Epicor is awfully busy right now and their consultants are on several projects at once so if you don't have them schedule, they will get scheduled on another project. You may run into this issue with any busy VAR/implementors.

Publsher: how is the support
- A good way to judge this is to contact references from each vendor. Believe it or not, references are usually objective and will tell you their honest opinion.

Do you see this as being a long term solution?
- This is a very important question, it's probably the most important in your process. I'd rather discuss this question with you offline.

@JDBoston - I disagree - The proof is in the pudding and it works beautifully, not to mention being priced better than we had anticipated. What do you sell JD? My guess is that it is another product or that you dislike Microsoft?

Unless, they charge you for it. Installation, set-up and training-implementation up-front, else it sounds desperate.

No ERP is going to work by just install and leave it to the users to "Test" . From my experience user will click here and there and feels frustrated that the ERP isn't user's friendly and not workable.

I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it. For a company to spend the 3 to 6 days needed to do a decent pilot, at no charge, probably means they have consultants 'on the beach' and they figure rather than them sit around, at least help out toward a sale during what's probably a very slow period thanks to the economy. I'm not saying the results won't be valid and you won't get a good solution, but it may point to potential economic problems with this VAR if things don't pick up. You should at least investigate this as a potential issue.

My advice: Listen to your intuition. My company chose MS Dynamics and the established partner consulting firm because of their experience in our industry, and the fact that they have a reputation for making things right without nickel and diming their clients to death. ITS-Dynamics is the vendor that has provided us with a free pilot for 30 days with our data running in it.

Lindsay,
That is a typical issue with Epicor. If support is a major concern for you, I would look to vendors that deliver a "mixed" support model. That is their main (as in they are truly committed to the model) delivery method is to utilize local partners to implement the system and take care of you when you require someone on site (no airplanes, quicker reaction time, etc.), yet they keep the hot line support in house (upsets the partners as they can't make money on this, but gives you the best service. i.e. 24 hours a time, consistency of response, access to development team, etc.). Needless to say, this is only one aspect that you should be considering, but an important one.
Bill

Everyone has a different strategy, I guess. I wouldn't want my
software out there in people's hands if they don't know how to properly
use it. After all, how can they evaluate it, if they don't understand
what they're looking at? Personally, I'm curious to hear how the MS
partner was able to install the product without having a SQL server
license and CALs.

We've done time-bomb installations for some potential customers, but we
did charge them for the installation, training, and 3rd-party software
licenses (database seats). If the prospect is serious about getting the
data conversion, training, and process consultation as part of the
trial, then that just seems like due diligence to me. If they aren't,
then I'd be a little scared about how they make their decisions.

And that's about it. You can go round and round and still would not come to a conclusion.
But George has it right. You choose the ERP that you have evaluated because of the consultants
experience in your industry and track record that they have.
All the best.

Yea, I remember back in the 90's when Navision first came to the US they had a demo disk of the full product you could install yourself and play with. I'm an ERP consultant and got so frustrated so fast that I was turned off by a product that my company has become one of the largest resellers for.

Hands on demos without close supervision don't work beyond the quickbooks market IMHO. I don't mean supervision to keep you in the zone they want you in, but to keep you from getting frustrated when the software doesn't work the same way as the solutions you were used to.

Mark,
Yes Epicor is trying to grow their VAR channel for Epicor 9, but they are mainly direct (by a wide margin) and they certainly aren't anywhere close to the VAR channel of Microsoft. Microsoft is mainly channel and Epicor is mainly direct.
Bill

George, there seems to be a strong bias and constant referral to its dynamics. Not just in this string here but in many others. What is the affiliation as it appears much stronger than client to vendor?

Epicor has cut their VAR channel at least twice in the past ten years and cannot decide whether to follow the direct or channel model. They chase the good ones themselves and throw the excess over the fence to the channel. They also cannot deliver implementation direct and outsource the overload. Many times, the implementation partner was never involved in the sales process. NAV and SYSPRO have great channel programs and the VARs run the cycle.

Sorry Todd, but as an Epicor partner with nearly 15 years on the clock have to disagree with a number of points in this response. I don't know much about Syspro and their engagement model. but the important thing to understand about the Microsoft model (and this also corrects a comment made in an earlier post) is a *completely* channel one; there is NO direct sales/implementation channel for any of their multiple ERP products. That is one of the reasons there are typically 3, 4 or even more partners for a given MS product in a given city, and why it isn't unusual for at least two of them to fighting over the same bone. I'd sure hate to have to try and build a successful business, making the investment you need to both initially and on an on-going basis, in that sort of warzone...

Epicor has always, or at least for the time we have been a partner, had a channel. It is certainly true that on occasion the amount of resource allocated to the channel, it's management and delivery to its members has waxed and waned, but the same can also be said of Oracle and SAP and Info and any number of other larger ERP vendors. Different corporate executives with different ideas, and/or ebbs and flows in economic environments, make this inevitable. But Epicor realises, and has stated to analysts and Wall Street a number of times in the last couple of years, that the Channel is an important part of their sales and delivery model they want - and need - to grow. In particular, with Epicor 9 growing into a truly global solution they simply do not have the ability to reach or completely cover every geography and vertical that the solution is spreading to.

Strong, dedicated, results-driven and well-resourced partners have always - irrespective of any perceived or actual change in prevailing winds - been well looked after by Epicor. Some partners have skills and a business model that is based primarily around project delivery and on-going value add, and those are increasingly taking the opportunity to become certified as such and make themselves available to Epicor or other partners in that role. Others are very sales-focused and virtually always engage a prospect explicity with Epicor's consulting resource at their side. Still others, like ourselves with 15 consultants and PM's and strong in-house dev skills, provide a complete prospect-to-project-to-lifetime relationship with clients.

I think that kind of flexibility, with increasingly strong underlying programs to support it, from Epicor is both incredibly pragmatic and provides wonderful options and depth to customers and prospects.

Sunny, most RFI's (list of requirements) sent to vendors, get returned with mostly yes answers. And trying to "make the demo" to prove they meet your needs is almost as non-useful. Here is an article I wrote for APICS a few years ago. I hope you find it useful.
Andy Pratico
C: 604-505-4409

An ERP Selection Process that Guarantees Results!

There are over 1,000 manufacturing systems in North America and yet The Wall Street Journal has stated that "73 % of all manufacturers are dissatisfied with their current ERP systems." Why?

There are a number of theories why implementations have problems:
- Poor planning or no planning at all
- Top Management not involved or did not commit to the project
- Unreliable data
- Lack of training or implementation assistance
- Poor selection process
- Lost project momentum
- Business processes are not corrected
But the main reason that implementations fail is the legacy selection process commonly used is flawed.

The Budget Approval Dance

The first step in any selection process is expenditure approval. Middle managers spend days defining their selection process plan. The more detailed the budget approval request is, the more detailed the selection plan is, the more due diligence is assumed and therefore perceived risk is lessened. The legacy selection plan usually contains:
- A multiple page, detailed system requirements definition (sent to a short list of vendors for confirmation), and submitted as a Request for Proposal (RFP)
- Multiple, onerous "sales demos" with various systems
- Telephone reference calls on the selected vendor

The middle manager can get so obsessed with budget approval; and, the upper manager can get so consumed in confirming the selection process is sound, that the most important objective in selecting a new system can be overlooked. The most important goal should be to ensure your company is successful with the new system! Any other consideration should be secondary.

Systems Today Are Function-Rich

The more you evaluate systems, the more you recognize that all have an abundance of functionality. The reason they fail is not a lack of information, it is the exact opposite. They are too cumbersome and too difficult to learn.

Then why do we devote our entire search to evaluating which system has the best and/or most functionality? Is it because new systems are purchased only every ten years, therefore, no one individual has the experience to learn from their mistakes?

Let's review the legacy selection approach described above.

1 - Issue a detailed multi-page novel called the "system requirements list" to all software vendors to fill out (honestly) thereby confirming which match. However software companies want to remain in consideration, and are motivated to answer each question with a carefully worded, "yes we do that!"

2 - The selection team then shoulders the arduous task of reviewing "sales demos" in an attempt to decipher the differences. "Sales demos" are designed to look good. If the "sales demo" did not look good, the software company would go out of business. Software companies hire professional presenters who know precisely which keystrokes will present their software in the best light.

Remember the first day you looked at the system you use now? How difficult did it seem then versus today? How many months did it take before the haze lifted and the system became second nature? Is it possible to recognize the pros and cons of a system you are reviewing for the first time in an 8 hour, "sales demo"?

3 - You now call references to confirm that companies are happy with their systems. Where did you get the references from? Did the software vendor carefully select "bullet-proof" customers that swear the software turns water into wine?

4 - And voila ? you have selected the very best system for your company. Or have you?

A Fresh Approach To Selecting ERP Systems

If time is money, then speed is profit. How can we speed up the ERP selection process, yet not fall into the same traps as the majority do, which fail?

The most important factor in selecting a new system is: to make sure your company is successful with the new system. If 73% of manufacturers are not satisfied with their current ERP system and used the same selection process as you, why will yours be different? Maybe a different process should be investigated.

Not to mention that the step-by-step, due diligence process historically used, costs $10,000s of internal resource time.

This 4-Step Plan is only common sense. But best of all, it will take far less time to complete and your results will be guaranteed!

A Fresh Approach to Selecting ERP Systems
What is the ultimate goal when selecting a system? To make sure the system will achieve the promise and results you expect. If 73.8% of manufacturers are not satisfied with their current ERP system and they used the same selection process as you plan to, why will yours be different? Maybe a different process should be investigated.
Step 1 - Justify the system purchase with a Business Case. Is your current system truly lacking the functionality required in your ETO operation? Will a new system provide you with an adequate return on investment? Converting to a new system is difficult enough. You want to be certain that the effort is warranted - or else don't do it.
Step 2 - Document current workflows and processes (current state data stream mapping). Question all processes in regards to why you conduct all the steps that you do. Are any redundant or not necessary? This will help you define your critical requirements while reviewing systems as well as assist in paring down your processes once your new ERP system is in place.
Step 3 - Define the critical requirements that are unique to your company. Then match to the vendors on your short list. Please note: Critical requirements only. You have to assume that all systems will have an "Aged Trial Balance". This list should not be longer than two pages.
Step 4 - Ask this vendor to bring in the trainer you will work with after the sale is complete, not their professional presenter. Trainers have to live with their promises after the sale, and will be quite forward about what the system can, or cannot do.

Have the trainer set up the software around your requirements and enter a sub-set of your data. The intention will be to present the system as if it were live at your facility. Offer to pay for this service. Trainers are not offered to prospective clients because existing customers are paying them to implement their projects. This "proof of concept pilot" may cost a few thousand dollars, but will be far less expensive than the time-consuming step-by-step method.

As stated previously, the ultimate goal when selecting a system is to make sure the system will achieve the results you expect. By following this simple process with emphasis on the unique requirements of your organization, you will not only get the right system fit for your company, you will increase your chances of success. Why would you use any other method?

Remember, if you fail to implement, why do you care what the software does?

I circumvented the tendancy to blindly put 'yes' in, by opening up the list to include the following response selections:

Yes Your solution is compliant with no modifications required.
Conf Your solution is compliant with some configuration required (if so, please include a high-level estimate of effort and cost to comply).
Mod Your solution is compliant with some customisation or modification required (if so, please include a high-level estimate of effort and cost to comply).
Future Your solution will be compliant in a future release, which must be available within the next 12 months.
3 P Your solution is compliant with the addition of third-party add-ons. Please provide any additional cost estimates for implementation and maintenance (if known).
WA Your solution is a work-around.
No Your solution is non-compliant.

This removed the temptation to 'extend the truth' and forces them to be more specific about how their system 'is' or 'isn't' compliant. The column only allowed a LOV's so they could only choose one of the above. It makes it much quicker to identify.

Also, this is a legally binding document. If we find that they put "Yes" when they should have used another (eg. "Mod") then they have blatantly misled the process and it is much easier to prove this point. Whereas, a basic "Yes" or "No" option is open to interpretation and allows the respondant to omit clarifying their answer.

I've got to weigh in here, all respect to Andy and everyone else and their
ideals, but reality was... and still probably is... that we (Var's,
Associates, Distributors, Consultants, whatever) used the 9Y-1N rule in order to
get the prospect to look at our software. Our Motto: Always finish in the
top three!!! And...after that, if we could show the best, have the best
references, have the best price/performance and guarantee satisfaction face
to face, we would get the deal. And being fortunate enough to represent
the greatest ERP system ever devised "Visual", we usually prevailed.
Note, however, that the key here is to get to play in the game, something
you learn to do when you're not the biggest, not the favorite of the big 6
accounting firms, consultants, and not the local reseller down the street.

First why do software providers look to respond with as many "yes" answers as possible? So they don't get eliminated for responding conservatively. As pointed out throughout these responses, if it is a "no" people are eliminated; however if it is a "yes" they are asked for clarification. Responding to clarifications allows for "selling time" with the prospect. Software companies consider this a good thing.

Second, what is wrong with the process that you utilized to remove the "temptation to extend the truth". The person responding gets to interpret your question they way they see fit, and that can make for an honest yes response (though it may not be to the question the way you meant it). When you are writing a series of questions, most be one liners, while the large ones are maybe 3 liners; they are open to significant interpretation... Also the comment on it being a legal binding document, rest assured there are untold words/phrases in your document that do not have a legal definition - nor are they defined in a legal manner in your document (it would of cost you more to have attorneys make it into an enforceable document than you spent on the software). So I would be skeptical of the level of protection you really have.

Let me give you a different take on extracting honesty from the software providers you are dealing with. Set a number of "offenses" that you will tolerate from the vendors. For example one "blatant" misrepresentations, or two "lies", or five "eyebrow raisers", whatever you feel comfortable with. Then provide the guidelines to the vendors with the caveat that if they violate the rules they are out. No matter what. Then stick to your guns. If you do this, you know you will be dealing with an honest partner; if everyone does this you will change the way the process works.
Regards,
Bill

At 05:54 PM 9/8/2010, Jo.Keown via erp-select wrote:
>I circumvented the tendancy to blindly put 'yes' in, by opening up
>the list to include the following response selections:
>
>
>This removed the temptation to 'extend the truth' and forces them to
>be more specific about how their system 'is' or 'isn't' compliant.
>The column only allowed a LOV's so they could only choose one of the
>above. It makes it much quicker to identify.

Huh? So instead of saying yes/no they had to pick between 5
different options? That's silly. All it does is just
make sure people took 10 minutes instead of 1. Not only
will it promote vendors giving them selves glowing reviews,
it entirely misses the point that a list of 1001 multiple
choice questions isn't going to find out if a system
meets your needs.

The whole point is any method that puts the decision of
compliance in the hands of a vendor is wrong. If this was
the method, start from scratch because it's already completely
off the rails. The right way to do it is to ask a vendor
how their system does things, and then *you* decided based
on the response whether that meets your needs or not.

>Also, this is a legally binding document. If we find that they put
>"Yes" when they should have used another (eg. "Mod") then they have
>blatantly misled the process and it is much easier to prove this
>point. Whereas, a basic "Yes" or "No" option is open to
>interpretation and allows the respondant to omit clarifying their answer.

By saying "open to interpretation" you've entirely proved my
point. And I would also say to think such documents have
legal standing is quite naive. Not to mention in practice
companies would be out of business before they had a chance
to go to court. Only companies that have steered away from
that before it ever happens are going to survive.

I'd love to tell you what I think Lindsay but I can't on the forum. I will share this, based on my opinions:

* one of them has viability concerns
* one of them appears to be unfavored as the go-to product in the portfolio
* one of them has implementation consultant concerns

Ultimately your implementation successful will be based mostly on following a solid process rather than the software. So make sure to put a fair amount of emphasis on the implementation partner (to see why check out my blog posting on who suffers most when implementations fail).

Shoot me an email and we can continue the conversation offline - email@removed

At 06:12 PM 9/1/2010, mchinsky via erp-select wrote:
>I was thinking the same thing but didn't want to say it. For a
>company to spend the 3 to 6 days needed to do a decent pilot, at no
>charge, probably means they have consultants 'on the beach' and they
>figure rather than them sit around, at least help out toward a sale
>during what's probably a very slow period thanks to the economy. I'm
>not saying the results won't be valid and you won't get a good
>solution, but it may point to potential economic problems with this
>VAR if things don't pick up. You should at least investigate this as
>a potential issue.
>

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Let's face it, the client
pays one way or the other. Sometimes companies don't realize how
much margin there is in the service and how it means they're just
getting at cost to begin with. There's also a very consistent
tendency for service based organizations to put the license
profit together and skew it towards which ever needs to look
cheaper. And finally when it comes to disruptive products like
ERP software, the tolerance for failure level is huge given the
effort to abandon ship and go elsewhere. That means even if
the pilot has issues, it'll still go way further down the road
to profit level under most circumstances. It's really unfortunate
the huge amount of good money thrown after the bad. And the
service vendors understand this.

It's by no means an instant indicator of implementation failure.
But it also isn't any altruistic offer. Once a decision to
do a pilot is made, the decision is already done. You're only
trying to find out how good/bad the decision was before it's
too late to go into detox from your addiction.

Geoff,
Thanks for your 'constructive' comments. However, it is my job to ensure that we get software that fits our business, not to pander to vendor's preferences. The fact that a vendor get's knocked out because it's not a good fit is precisely the point of the excercise. For your information, Vendor's have responded appropriately and this in turn made our job of analysing and scoring that much faster, easier and more accurate. The fact that it may take vendors a bit longer to respond is not a concern to me (I'm afraid). Furthermore, this is quite common practice and I have seen it used in other areas, notably State Government tenders. Whether you think it's 'silly' or not is neither here nor there; please note though, that in practice I have found it to be effective.

Geoff -I have to say I agree with your first comment above. That is pretty much exactly what happened to us. We saw some red flags within days after signing the contract, but decided that we have already come this far, could live with them. More red flags, yellow flags week after week. It was mostly like, we have already spent ALL this money choosing this ERP, now we HAVE to make it work. We can't afford NOT to.

If we could have only seen where we would end up at that time...

Andy- thanks for your list. We actually did do #1 and #2 on your list before we started, but undoubtedly we could have been more diligent at it. I don't see how #3 is any different than the must have list that we made. #4 - THAT is a GREAT idea. We were totally "snow-blowed" by the on site demo guy. If we had a question, he could show us exactly how to do it in the software, or at least, if he couldn't, sure made us think he DID.

The multiple option choice is similar to the TEC Evaluation Check List options. There are two huge issues with the checklist approach. 1. Unlike diving there is no degree of difficulty - can you do it - you sure can if you memorize the 27 steps that it takes me to demonstrate the functionality that you assumed was going to be done in one step. 2. Each activity is assumed to be a singular event. Again - can you do this - we sure can, but not easily in conjunction with the activity above or below this requirement. Individually we can do them all, just not easily as you assumed they would be because you put them on this list.

One of the reasons that ERP implementations fail is the misunderstanding by all parties of what the real objectives of the project are. Before looking for a new solution take the time to understand and document your processes. Capturing the screens that a user has to step through in order to complete their daily tasks will make it easier on everyone. You can tell the vendor - here is what we do today and what we cannot do today with the existing system. Show me a better way of doing this. By doing this due diligence up front everyone now has the benchmarks to define success.

I realize that it is a lot of work to document the existing processes that are going to be completely changed by the new system. However it will make the implementation go faster and you may be able to find some cost savings immediately before you even select a new system just by reviewing the processes with your existing users.

To you statement please add: without a proper selection methodology that the client buys the most glib software salesman.

When companies base software selection on people and not processes, the best salesman wins period. Regardless of what people think, without comparing software apples to apples, which is a detailed and time consuming process, a company is buying the salesman.

Gentlemen, thanks for the liberally applied insults to our company's research process. The vendor (ITS Dynamics) is very stable financially and we have spoken to some of their major accounts as references. They had a banner year according to Microsoft in this poor economy in 2009, which indicates they must be doing something right.

Mike, your comment worries me a little. Do you think that in 2010 people still buy ERP based on the sales person? Boy I hope not. Maybe it's me but I find the people I work for/with to be a pretty sophisticated and educated consumer. They always have a process to some extent. Not all have the process that I would use but they more often than not use some sort of selection criteria and evaluation process. I guess I just hate to think that I ever lost out on an opportunity because clients were snowed by the competing salesperson. In addition, in all the implementations I've won, I don't think my personality (although awesome)(I mean really, really awesome, just ask me) ever played a role. That being said I think my glib-ness factor could use a major upgrade.

The right partner is more important than the software choice, because the right partner will not sell you the wrong software. I have not read all of these responses, but Mike is right. Yes, even in 2010 I have seen prospects make the wrong choice because the salesman gave them the good feeling. Then he turned the project over to the technical department and everything went downhill from there. It does not matter if they are a Gold, Tin or Wood partner. They need to (a) understand business processes, especially yours (b) have a competent technical team and (c) be able to manage a project.

A few years ago Ray Lane (former COO of Oracle) did a interview where he was asked about customers and brand loyalty, "They're buying their favorite sales person, not the best software" and goes on to explain that for most customers their is little difference between products from SAP and Oracle. Just proves again the old saying "a good salesman can sell ice to Eskimos"

I used to be a manufacturing "Demo Dolly" for (at the time) a Tier 1 ERP vendor.
The salesman would instruct all of us Demo Dolly s (Financial s, Sales, HR to "cozy up" with our respective groups and make "friends". Our easy sales were the customers that did not have a formal software selection process. Where there is no process it turns into a emotional buy, who are you going to buy from ? your friends of course!

Dan:
Dan:
You are not serious, right.?!
I have seen it countless times. Few companies will take the time to map their processes (after first "leaning" them out) and ask vendors to demonstrate those processes so that apples can compare to apples. This process takes quite a bit of time and effort to create and define. It is also only a part of the overall process. If routine, we would not be seeing such a run of questions in this forum like, I am a manufacturer and am looking at products X and Y, please tell me which is best!

I'm totally serious. Hey I mean I'm not saying everyone has their processes flow-charted on day one but it's?also not 1999?when people are?believing the slick salesguy who convinces them that planes will fall out of the sky when the calendar?year turns triple zero's if they don't upgrade today (ah, those were the days). By having a process I'm saying they have a sense of who the players are in a particular market, they ask them in, do discovery, maybe produce a requirements document, get demos, ask for references, do their due dilligence on the vendor/partner, negotiate terms, and kick off the implementation. Again, always some variation, sometimes not as strictly adhered to as others, but I think that the days of the sales pitching,?glad-handing "hey I see you have kids, I have a few of my own that I want some day" type of sales person is dead. I think a salesperson/consultant?either listens closely, engages, and proves value almost immediately or the consumer sniffs you out and you get bounced. Just my opinion. I'm not saying anybody is?wrong, I'm just giving the buyer?a little benefit of the doubt. I also work pretty squarely?in the middle of the mid-market. I'm not dealing with many small SMB shops nor am I dealing the Tier 1 enterprise space so maybe my people are smarter. :)? I?do agree with you sometimes when I see that the shortlist is Oracle, Quickbooks Enterprise, Dynamics SL, and Compiere I'm like?"What the....?" but most of the time I think folks have either made a decision or are getting close and are looking for validation.

Anyway, far afield of the original question but it's an interesting topic. Either way I think I should go brush up on my Dale Carnegie principles.

>I?do agree with you sometimes when I see that the shortlist is
>Oracle, Quickbooks Enterprise, Dynamics SL, and Compiere I'm
>like?"What the....?" but most of the time I think folks have either
>made a decision or are getting close and are looking for validation.

Boy do I hear you on that one. The problem is it seems like 90% of
the posts here are like that. The other 9% are college students
posting their assignments. ;-)

Few of the clients I work with are really prepared for the implementation and almost none of them have done a proper selection. Most clients think the easy part is the selection, then, the implementation is just an annoyance that needs to be tolerated for some period of time. Few of these companies have mission and/or vision statements, let alone formal procedures and few know that using an ERP System is an effort to manage the business in an organized fashion. My 20+ years doing ERP suggestions that most companies believe the ERP means - automated processes and little intervention from people. Nothing could be further than the truth.

The truth is that most small and mid-sized organizations are attempting to transition from an entrepreneurial model to a formal business system and THAT is why implementation can be such a divisive and emotional effort. Many entrepreneurs are fire fighters by nature. And when you have only a hammer in your toolbox, all problems look like a nail. That is not an indictment of entrepreneurs, the world needs them. The question becomes how to teach an entrepreneur to step back and look at the company differently. The effort requires a seasoned consultant, one with credentials, education, and experience. And in this world, two out of three IS BAD!

Jumped in to say I agree wholeheartedly with Cintronics - The right partner
will not sell you the wrong solution. I've recently seen an example of a
business being 'sold' on the salesperson rather than the solution and its
suitability to the company's existing processes. Once it hit the technical
department, it did all go downhill.

Never be afraid to ask a partner to substantiate their claims and to
investigate these yourself. They should be willing to provide reference
sites, case studies and testimonials to strengthen their case that they are
a suitable vendor, and that they have the processes, technical capabilities,
project management abilities and commitment to make your project a success.

On the other hand, be VERY afraid of the salesperson that doesn't say 'No'
to anything on your list of requirements ! This is the most obvious sign of
'something wrong' in the initial stages of consideration of solutions,
vendors or partners and will most likely result in the situation outlined.
(Once the project went to technical department, it all went downhill)

A check of vertical markets which the partner markets in will give you an
indication if you are speaking with the right partner or not. If your core
business is manufacturing medical equipment (as an example), speaking to
someone whose majority of experience is in working with FMCG's may well
prove a waste of time.

Any party that engages with a solution vendor or partner without knowing
what their requirements or existing processes are is wasting their time, and
I have in the past told potential clients to go back to the drawing board
before making next steps into consideration of appropriate ERP solutions.
If a business has not completely identified these key areas, supplying any
solution is likely to end in disappointment.

Educating first time consumers that ERP solutions are not a 'One size fits
all' is a difficult process, and not often financially rewarding.

Getting the right vendor that acts as YOUR partner and being transparent in
your processes and needs is imperative to a successful implementation,
either when replacing an existing ERP or implementing an ERP for the first
time.